4.7 Article

An outlier mining algorithm based on constrained concept lattice

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 1170-1179

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207721.2012.745029

关键词

constrained concept lattice; outliers; sparsity subspace; density coefficient

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of P.R. China [61073145]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, P.R. China [2010011021-2]
  3. Returning Students and Scholars Research Project of Shanxi Province, P.R.China [2009-77]
  4. NSF [CCF-0845257, CNS-0757778, CCF-0742187, CNS-0831502, OCI-0753305, DUE-0837341, DUE-0830831]
  5. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  6. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0845257] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional outlier mining methods identify outliers from a global point of view. These methods are inefficient to find locally biased data points (outliers) in low dimensional subspaces. Constrained concept lattices can be used as an effective formal tool for data analysis because constrained concept lattices have the characteristics of high constructing efficiency, practicability and pertinency. In this paper, we propose an outlier mining algorithm that treats the intent of any constrained concept lattice node as a subspace. We introduce sparsity and density coefficients to measure outliers in low dimensional subspaces. The intent of any constrained concept lattice node is regarded as a subspace, and sparsity subspaces are searched by traversing the constrained concept lattice according to a sparsity coefficient threshold. If the intent of any father node of the sparsity subspace is a density subspace according to a density coefficient threshold, then objects contained in the extent of the sparsity subspace node are considered as bias data points or outliers. Our experimental results show that the proposed algorithm performs very well for high red-shift spectral data sets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据